Forbidden to lector or cantor

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cygnus_X1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thechrismyster said:
for the government, for the church… for NO man do you waive your constitutional rights to face your accuser.

the Church has taken the stand of “NO SECRETS”…ITS ALL IN THE OPEN…

no secrets! (except the church in this case, they can keep secrets from you!)

which removes credibility when they say they keep “no secrets” and yet tell you in a contract they’re willing to keep secrets from you… i smell irony.
Click to expand...
It’s strictly voluntary. Nobody is obligated to the position. If you don’t like all the rules, then you don’t do it. Seems the Archdiocese has that right to me.

If it was mandated that you volunteer in such a position, then there would be an argument, although the accuser would still be entitled to a right to be protected from the accused as well. Namely in such instances where the accuser would be in a position of subservience to the accused.

Besides, the Church is a Monarchy. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply at all.
 
Trelow said:
It’s strictly voluntary. Nobody is obligated to the position. If you don’t like all the rules, then you don’t do it. Seems the Archdiocese has that right to me.

If it was mandated that you volunteer in such a position, then there would be an argument, although the accuser would still be entitled to a right to be protected from the accused as well. Namely in such instances where the accuser would be in a position of subservience to the accused.

Besides, the Church is a Monarchy. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply at all.
Click to expand...
agreed 100%. but then i better not hear any whining from the pulpit when no one is volunteering for anything.

if walls are built, and the system becomes more important than the purpose… thus the fall a second time.

you don’t provide secrecy to the accuser, and then promise openess regarding the process. they just don’t have credibility when that happens.
 
Cygnus X1,
Go ahead and sign the silly thing. You will find that the waiver is not legally enforceable anyway. This is very much like the waivers we had our parents sign when the Scout troop went on a camping trip. It wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.
The part that I find most distressing is that this is part and parcel of the cult of secrecy that so long protected pedophiles in the Church. The only way to combat it is to insist on Pope John Paul II’s “glass house” concept of Church.

Matthew
 
Cygnus_X1 said:
In the application for volunteering (it’s come to this, that we must apply to volunteer :rolleyes: ), there’s a line just before the signature:

I waive any right that I may have to inspect any information provided about me in connection with this application.
?
Click to expand...
I have worked in HRD and also in volunteer recruitment for many agencies and this is a standard clause in many employment and volunteer application forms. Also just for the record, OP or anyone else who chooses not to comply with the regulations of the diocese, on conscience, legal or any other grounds, has not been prohibited from serving in ministry, nor have they been victims of discrimination, as long as the standards are applied to everyone. That may be the reason the diocese is interpreting so broadly the scope of those whom they require to comply with their guidelines.
 
puzzleannie said:
I have worked in HRD and also in volunteer recruitment for many agencies and this is a standard clause in many employment and volunteer application forms.
Click to expand...
But when I was being screened for a Top Secret security clearance, I was granted exactly the opposite; knowledge of who they talked to and what they said. I don’t care if it’s boilerplate; I’m not signing it.
 
puzzleannie said:
I have worked in HRD and also in volunteer recruitment for many agencies and this is a standard clause in many employment and volunteer application forms. Also just for the record, OP or anyone else who chooses not to comply with the regulations of the diocese, on conscience, legal or any other grounds, has not been prohibited from serving in ministry, nor have they been victims of discrimination, as long as the standards are applied to everyone. That may be the reason the diocese is interpreting so broadly the scope of those whom they require to comply with their guidelines.
Click to expand...
thus, the reduction of the Holy Roman Catholic Church to just another ‘agency’ with a CYA clause. - is that where we’re heading? sad. really sad.
 
Trelow said:
Besides, the Church is a Monarchy. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply at all.
Click to expand...
The Vatican City is a monarchy. Unless this person is a citizen of the Vatican City, they are bound by the laws of whichever country they are a citizen of, and not the laws of the Church, in this respect (although they are of course as Christians bound to follow Christ and his Church). Therefore, the Constitution could apply.
 
Titus said:
The Vatican City is a monarchy. Unless this person is a citizen of the Vatican City, they are bound by the laws of whichever country they are a citizen of, and not the laws of the Church, in this respect (although they are of course as Christians bound to follow Christ and his Church). Therefore, the Constitution could apply.
Click to expand...
Nope, the Church is a monarchy. Unless Jesus is just a figurehead under the tittle “king”.
 
I would have signed it, quietly putting a line through any unacceptable terms, and hoped nobody would notice.😉
 
If your intent is to really find out why these policies are in place instead of just gearing up for a fight, I might suggest a different path and some perspective.

First, I would suggest you contact the Archdiocese office, the Office of Child and Youth Protection, and comparable departments at the USCCB, in a Christian way find out the background on these two points (including lectors and cantors, and waiving rights). Honey will get you a lot further than vinegar, like any other situation you won’t get far attacking the people who as PuzzleAnnie said are just trying to do their jobs and could help you if you let them.

Second, while I am not a lawyer, from my business, community and diocesan experience (plus I went through the volunteer-with-children training offered in many dioceses), there are two points to consider:
  1. ANYONE who has the ***potential ***of being with a child without parents present must be investigated. Consider the liability if your son or daughter was inadvertently alone with someone not investigated who had committed a sex crime, whether or not they did commit another act. Given that there are children’s liturgies, children’s ceremonies where lectors and cantors will be, separate readings of gospel and homilies where children are absent from their parents (our church does this a few masses a weekend), and more, then as an archdiocese they can’t take a chance. You can argue “That won’t happen”, but it COULD, and it DOES at some parishes. If you put yourself in the parents’ shoes, you would not want the chance taken either - and that is the stance the Archdiocese has taken. So pretty much ANY volunteer gets investigated. Also, once a volunteer is “in the community”, people ask them to do other stuff all the time. That would be impossible to track, so it’s easier to investigate all volunteers as any of them could end up with children.
  2. It does not say you WON’T get access to what was said, it says you WAIVE YOUR RIGHT to it, so they MAY withhold it from you and if so you can’t force them to give it to you. Why? Because testimony in these cases could in fact come from a victim, a minor, a child, a person who risks a lot by disclosing this crime publicly, and they must be in a place to ensure their protection. The identity of minors in crimes are many times protected in civil situations. This is a legal maneuver to protect minors who could be victims. These laws bend to protect minors. What you haven’t asked and only the lawyers could tell you is what are your rights in this type of scenario. You certainly have rights, but the victims do too, and this has been worked out many times before.
Again, you may find out more about these by channeling your fury productively. You are right to not sign it if you really don’t agree, as the person that said this is not enforceable doesn’t know what they are talking about. But there are people who are experts in the diocese that will help you if you let them, and you could learn how this would all work if you really are concerned.

Good luck with this, I’ll pray for you…
 
Trelow said:
Nope, the Church is a monarchy. Unless Jesus is just a figurehead under the tittle “king”.
Click to expand...
Is Jesus involved in the Church’s child protection policy? Come on. This is administration, and yes, Catholics do come under the laws of their country.
 
Our parish requires anyone who volunteers in any capacity at all to submit to a background check, virtus classes, and the waiver.
I guess I will never be a volunteer in any capacity.
No I’ve never done anything and don’t plan to.
It’s wrong. It doesn’t stop diddly. It goes against basic common sense.
My latest complaint about this is that now they say I can’t stay with my own kid for things unless I’ve gone through all this. In other words, I can’t even sit next to my kid through their CCD class. I can drop off and pick up, but I can’t stay in the classroom. How stupid is that?
**Oh well, as mentioned elsewhere, the program is often barely recognisable as Catholic anyhow so it’s no huge loss for my kid not to be there anyhow.:cool: **
**The ONLY thing we need do to protect kids is gasp stay WITH them at least 2 people or their own parent at all times. Predators are looking to get your kid alone, even for just 1 minute, and they will have no problem smiling as they fill out paperwork and watch a video on what you are looking for to get access to do it either.😦 :confused: **
**argh… I need more coffee. I’m getting cranky.😊 **
 
How very sad. I’ve been through the protection training many times as a Cub/Boy Scout leader. But I’ve never been asked to do it as a cantor.

It’s my understanding it was needed IF you were the leader, scoutmaster, trainer, or coach, etc. in charge of minors (other than your own) and going to be away from their parents - out of their sight. Makes sense as a scout leader or coach.

As a cantor or lector - I just don’t see it. I’ve never been in the presence of kids unless they are at mass on Sunday.

Our litigious society is consuming our common sense. I will shake my head and pray.
 
Rob_s_Wife said:
Our parish requires anyone who volunteers in any capacity at all to submit to a background check, virtus classes, and the waiver.

I guess I will never be a volunteer in any capacity.

No I’ve never done anything and don’t plan to.

**It’s wrong. It doesn’t stop diddly. It goes against basic common sense.**According to a person within my diocese’s Safe Environments department, between 30 and 50 people were disqualified in 2006 from working for the diocese or volunteering because they failed the background check. That is 30 to 50 potential predators that were denied access to children at different parishes in that year alone. Sounds like it is stopping at least some diddly to me.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you have ruled out volunteering your time because you refuse to follow the prescribed process. It really isn’t that bad or intrusive.

Peace
Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
According to a person within my diocese’s Safe Environments department, between 30 and 50 people were disqualified in 2006 from working for the diocese or volunteering because they failed the background check. That is 30 to 50 potential predators that were denied access to children at different parishes in that year alone. Sounds like it is stopping at least some diddly to me.

I’m sorry you have ruled out volunteering your time because you refuse to follow the prescribed process. It really isn’t that bad or intrusive.

Peace
Tim

I’ll bet there’ll be a few lawsuits to come out of that as well.

Sometimes the Church tries to speak out of both sides of Her mouth.

I’d love to see what was in their backgrounds that caused the potential volunteers to be disqualified. I sure hope it was legit, because you’ve already labeled them as potential preditors.

Therin lies the concern that good people have about signing away their lives in order to volunteer.
 
az_4_faith said:
I’ll bet there’ll be a few lawsuits to come out of that as well.

Sometimes the Church tries to speak out of both sides of Her mouth.

I’d love to see what was in their backgrounds that caused the potential volunteers to be disqualified. I sure hope it was legit, because you’ve already labeled them as potential preditors.

Therin lies the concern that good people have about signing away their lives in order to volunteer.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY! If they had a criminal background of sexual abuse with children, for example, it would be illegal for them to even apply in most states because part of their release is based on registering and staying away from children. Applying for such a position would actually land them in jail - not just “disqualified”.
**And it did not keep them away from children! Were they kicked out of the parish? Are they forbidden to go into restrooms where a child might be alone? Do that sit at seperate tables so they can’t talk children into walking out to the parking lot? Was a bulletin prepared and posted notifying parents of this potential danger? No? then I prove my point. **At best, these programs give a very false sense of protection.
 
az_4_faith said:
I’ll bet there’ll be a few lawsuits to come out of that as well.

Sometimes the Church tries to speak out of both sides of Her mouth.

I’d love to see what was in their backgrounds that caused the potential volunteers to be disqualified. I sure hope it was legit, because you’ve already labeled them as potential preditors.

Therin lies the concern that good people have about signing away their lives in order to volunteer.
Click to expand...
There certainly would be lawsuits if you were to see the results of a confidential background check. I wasn’t given their names and I labeled them as potential predators because that is what they are. I didn’t say they are predators.

By the way, I consider myself a good person and I passed the background check. The point of the background check has to do with due diligence. If the Church doesn’t do them and a volunteer/employee with a traceable history molests a child that they gained access to through the Church, the Church would be liable.

I find this whole discussion a bit irritating. We rightly complain about priests who molest children and we turn a blind eye to non-clergy that do the same thing because it doesn’t get as much press. Are we willing to protect our children or not? If you find the idea of background and reference checks and awareness training abhorrent, don’t volunteer. When you convince enough people to follow your lead, don’t be surprised when there are no teachers for your children’s RE classes.

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top